@Phaedrine_Stonebridge: "<quote>
As those who actually read the posts here know, I agree with Horowitz a 
lot of the time- but not in this instance.  I consider the prisoner 
scandal, and the events that have occured in its wake, the lock, stock 
and barrel responsibility of the current administration including 
fawning, obsequious incompetents at the Pentagon.  Why?  Because, from 
the day after 9-11, this administration knew we were dealing with a war 
that fit none of the same parameters as conflicts that led to the Geneva 
and related conventions.  They knew terrorism was a totally different 
animal that would involve, of necessity, totally different protocols.  
They knew when we started in Afghanistan there was going to be a 
prisoner problem and lots of issues resulting from a war against 
criminals disassociated from any sovereign state.  Any freshman in 
college might have figured that out.  
Placing this giant hairball at the foot of not-in-power liberals for 
letting the cat out of the bag, is merely an effort to escape 
responsibility for what is really a mammoth failure of leadership and 
the selfish, arrogant audacity that thinks "... we can just make these 
National Policy decisions oursleves behind closed doors without any 
input.... who needs to involve the people or their representatives?  
After all, we have the power so why should we even bother to ask what 
anyone else thinks?".
So instead of starting a national dialogue- or even a closed session 
dialogue with Congress- on how to deal with such issues, instead of 
providing sincere and honest leadership on matters doomed to blow up in 
our faces and make us the butt of international disdain, the Bush team 
decided they would just handle all such matters on their own, often 
ignoring glaring and growing problems resulting from inconsistencies in 
treaties, national policy and reality on the ground.  Haven't these 
people ever heard of freaking cameras?
What possible delusions could ever have possessed this administration to 
think that holding hundreds (maybe thousands) of non-POW prisoners, some 
on American territory, indefinitely without charge, without even a 
private military hearing, in an invented status that's never undergone 
any kind of objective legal scrutiny, would not cause a good deal of 
outrage?  And while I don't have the slightest bit of sympathy for 
anyone remotely involved in terrorism, I can scarcely imagine that this 
administration could have thought this would be anything but a walk into 
a maelstrom.  So, instead of dealing with it proactively as good leaders 
should from the onset and leading the effort to build a national 
consensus for new policies to replace the Geneva conventions in matters 
of terrorism, they just let the damn thing ride and made the US seem 
like a bunch of damn hypocrites violating our own national ethic.  
."
    @thor734: "news:<email_address>
<quote>
Thier status, illegal combatant,  was invented in the Geneva Convention.
They should feel luck, in WWII we executed illegal combatants on the spot."
    @Phaedrine_Stonebridge: "<quote>
When did the US ever declare war against Afghanistan?  Were that true, 
those prisoners would be POWs."
    @thor734: "news:<email_address>
<quote>
administration
prisoners,
Convention.
not?
No they wouldnt. Have you ever read the GC? It covers wars, declared and un
declared. It clearly defines what is a legal combatant and what is not. They
do not fit the defenition of legal combatant."
    @Phaedrine_Stonebridge: "<quote>
I see you continue to avoid the key questions and you are also 
contradicting yourself.  The presumption is still that wars addressed by 
the GC, whether declared or not, are with sovereign nations.  Once 
again, is that not true?  I am certainly no expert on the GC (and 
neither, obviously, are you) but I am quite certain that much is true at 
least."
    @thor734: "news:<email_address>
<quote>
they not?
Direct answer to your question!!!!!
See previous post for the direct answer I gave you.
Please specify the contadiction......I don't see it.
Are you then implying that Afghanistan was not a soverign nation at the
time? Regardless, it applies to people involed in the conflict as well as
the governments and armies of the soverign nations involved. I am not sure
where you are trying to go with this. If you are going to argue that al
qieda or the taliban are not soverign nations, then would be arguing the the
GC does not apply to them?
Maybe not, but at least I took the time to read it, which apparently you
didn't.
And I ask again, have you ever read it?"
    @Phaedrine_Stonebridge: "<quote>
Sorry but multiple exclamation marks won't change anything.
Spare me the BS and try to deal with facts.  You know perfectly well the 
US never declared nor made war on the sovereign nation of Afghanistan.  
We were after the Taleban and Al Qaeda- no more, no less.
Yes I know you don't see it.  Had we been at war with Afghanistan, most 
of the prisoners would have been POWs.
Non sequitur.
Had you really read my original post instead of going off half-cocked, 
you would know where I was going.  That is why your response is so..... 
inane... and why I won't continue to entertain it.  Buzz off."
    @thor734: "news:<email_address>
<quote>
message
news:<email_address>
true,
declared
Insults are a sign of a weak argument.......
Um...we invaded Afghanistan within weeks of 9/11. Maybe you don't remember
that.
We victorialewis@example.com.  Regardless, they do not meet the definition of legal
combatants.
sure
the
Again, your insults show the weakness of your argumeny, or lack there of."
{'source': 'USENET', 'other_information': '{"reply_count": 7, "forum_name": "alt.religion.islam.20140606.mbox"}', 'file': 'data/output/usenet-alt.religion.parquet'}